The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025/06/25 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Community Technology Advisory Commission - Regular Community technology advisory commission meeting June 25, 2025 6 p.m. If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, contact Jacque Smith at jsmith@stlouisparkmn.gov or 952.924.2632, or the administration department at 952.924.2525. Community technology advisory commission The St. Louis Park Community Technology Advisory Commission is meeting in person in the community room on the first floor of St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. Members of the public may attend the meeting in person. Agenda 1.Call to order – roll call 2.Welcome new members Shane Leverenz, Kayla Stautz •Reappointments: Rudyard Dyer, Konnor Slaats 3.Chair/vice chair positions – nominate and elect 4.Approval of minutes •May 21, 2025 5.Work session •Discuss member reviews of the Vision 3.0 information for strategic priorities and community ideas •Discuss member review of previous CTAC minutes and agendas for historical information about previous commission actions and initiatives •Discuss common themes of potential policy initiatives from the last six to 24 months of city council meetings •Align on tech policy ideas CTAC will propose to city council for further study 6.Next meeting: •July 23, 6 p.m. 7.Adjournment Community technology advisory commission meeting May 21, 2025 6 p.m. Community technology advisory commission Minutes Members present: Rudyard Dyer, Drew Keogh, Rolf Peterson, Konnor Slaats, Benjamin Straus Members absent: Mike Siegler, Nat Johnson Staff liaison: Jacque Smith, communications and technology director 1. Call to order – roll call Meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. 2. Approval of minutes – March 26, 2025 Peterson moved, Dyer seconded a motion to approve the minutes as written. There were no objections. 3. Business Vice Chair Slaats recapped the March 26 city council study session, at which council members expressed interest in policy guidance from the commission. Council suggestions included joining email lists for government technology, creating white papers, developing a brochure and participating in community events. Members discussed tabling at community events to address public questions and improve communications. Smith said a list of upcoming city events could be provided to commission members and stated it would be important to know exactly the goal of tabling to set appropriate expectations with the community. Members also briefly touched on the brochure idea. Members went on to discuss potential technology-related topics for a white paper, such as electric vehicle chargers at public parks and new businesses; installation of solar panels at homes; or technologies for a potential new public safety facility, which had been suggested by a city council member. Dyer suggested collaborating with other commissions who have interest in these topics, such as environment and sustainability, parks and recreation and/or police advisory commissions. It was agreed that any road map produced for the commission’s focus and priorities should align with the city’s strategic priorities and have approval from the city council using the new advisory form. Commission members discussed identifying common themes of potential policy initiatives from the last six to 24 months of city council meetings, using AI tools like ChatGPT to summarize the meetings and identify common themes. Straus started this work during the meeting, generating an idea of supporting economic development using smart city tools. Members agreed on next steps: • Review the Vision 3.0 information for strategic priorities and community ideas, since Vision 4.0 won’t be complete until 2026. • Review previous CTAC minutes and agendas for historical information about previous commission actions and initiatives. • Find a way to collaborate on ideas while complying with open meeting laws, to settle on three to five ideas to present to city council via the advisory form as part of a roadmap • Add a working session June 25, 2025, to further discuss the ideas raised at this meeting. 4. Staff updates Smith provided updates on stipends and term limits for boards and commission members; more information will be forthcoming from the city’s community engagement coordinator. Smith also encouraged members to stay engaged in the Vision 4.0 process. Slaats stated he had participated in facilitator training and had found it very useful; Straus also participated. Straus intends to host a meeting at his apartment complex. 5. Commission member updates - None 6. Next meeting: June 25, 2025 7. Adjournment Peterson moved, Dyer seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting, all voted in favor. Meeting ended at 6:54 p.m. __________________________________ __________________________________ Jacque Smith, liaison Chair These minutes were created with the assistance of a generative AI transcript service, then edited, reviewed and finalized by a human. 1 Advisory communication to council City Council has provided direction that the primary purpose of advisory boards and commissions is to assist/advise city council in the policy decision-making process on behalf of the public. Boards and commissions may also be asked to provide community advice and feedback in a systematic manner. Please use this form to submit a board or commission-related topic for city council consideration. Note that use of this advisory communication to council requires a majority vote of a city board or commission prior to submission. Decisions on whether to take up an issue will be made by council. Use the sections below as a guide and omit sections that may be extraneous. Date: To: From: Subject: Strategic priority (if applicable): Approved work plan item? ☐Yes ☐No Council request: ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐Review and decide (e.g., new work plan item) ☐Informational only – no response needed Action requested: What is the commission asking Council to do? For non-work plan items, no action will be taken unless Council chooses to provide direction or otherwise discuss at a future meeting. If requesting a new work plan item, make explicit. 1 Background: Explain the exact circumstances of the situation and provide general information about the topic/issue. Assessment: Explanation of the Commission's stance on a particular topic/issue, how it supports existing strategic priorities and how it advances the purpose of boards and commissions. Include information about whether cross- collaboration with other boards or commissions is recommended. If action from the council is requested, provide the justification. Recommendation: Recommendations should be included for “review and decide” initiatives. Include clear explanation of recommendation(s). This section can include a bulleted list of each individual recommendation, etc. Staff will provide their recommendations on the staff report. Board and Commission Annual work plan Presented to council: February 18, 2025 Approved by council: 1 2025 work plan │ Communications and Technology Commission 1 Initiative name: Support citywide Vision 4.0 process Initiative type: ☒ Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐ Independent research project ☐ Gather community feedback ☐ Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐ Applicant-initiated ☒ Staff-initiated ☐ Commission-initiated ☐ Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐ Yes ☒ No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): None, all will be involved. If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐ Yes ☒ No Initiative description: Support the citywide Vision 4.0 process by participating directly and/or encouraging others to participate, and by sharing information with other community members about the process. Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☒ Other ☐ N/A Target completion date: 3Q 2025 This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: None Staff support required: Communication from staff liaison about opportunities with Vision 4.0 Liaison comments: Plan to keep the commission informed about opportunities to assist with the citywide Vision 4.0 process. Board and Commission Annual work plan 2 2 Initiative name: Participate in city website redesign review process Initiative type: ☒ Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐ Independent research project ☐ Gather community feedback ☐ Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐ Applicant-initiated ☒ Staff-initiated ☐ Commission-initiated ☐ Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐ Yes ☒ No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): None, all members or a small group will be involved. If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐ Yes ☒ No Initiative description: While the exact process for the redesign has yet to be determined, we plan to draw on the expertise of the CTAC by involving members, or a small group of members, in potential user group testing or other review of a draft redesign of the city website. Strategic Priority: ☒ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☒ Other ☐ N/A Target completion date: 3Q 2025 This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: None Staff support required: Staff liaison Liaison comments: The primary goals of the redesign are to ensure compliance with upcoming ADA requirements, ensure mobile accessibility and improve search function. CTAC will be asked to focus on these items in its review. Board and Commission Annual work plan 3 3 Initiative name: Stay informed about pending legislation affecting cable and technology Initiative type: ☒ Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐ Independent research project ☐ Gather community feedback ☐ Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐ Applicant-initiated ☒ Staff-initiated ☐ Commission-initiated ☐ Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐ Yes ☒ No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): None, all will be involved If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐ Yes ☒ No Initiative description: CTAC is asked to stay informed about pending legislation that may affect the city’s cable franchise, or other technologies vital to the community such as broadband. Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☒ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A Target completion date: Ongoing This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: None Staff support required: Information and updates from staff liaison Liaison comments: Staff liaison will stay informed of pending legislation through contact with state and national advocacy organizations, as well as through the city’s legislative staff and lobbyists. Information affecting cable and technology will be shared with CTAC members. Board and Commission Annual work plan 4 4 Initiative name: Initiative type: ☐ Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐ Independent research project ☐ Gather community feedback ☐ Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐ Applicant-initiated ☐ Staff-initiated ☐ Commission-initiated ☐ Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐ Yes ☐ No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐ Yes ☐ No Initiative description: Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☒ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A Target completion date: This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: Staff support required: Liaison comments: Board and Commission Annual work plan 5 5 Initiative name: Initiative type: ☐ Staff support (review project, policy or program and provide feedback) ☐ Independent research project ☐ Gather community feedback ☐ Lead community event Initiative origin: ☐ Applicant-initiated ☐ Staff-initiated ☐ Commission-initiated ☐ Council-initiated Legally required (e.g. response to Legislative changes or Judicial decisions)? ☐ Yes ☐ No Commissioner lead(s) name(s): If joint commission initiative, list other board or commission: Is this an established work group? ☐ Yes ☐ No Initiative description: Strategic Priority: ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☒ 5 ☐ N/A Deliverable: ☐ Research report ☐ Summary of community input ☐ Other ☒ N/A Target completion date: This section to be completed by staff: Council request (if applicable): ☐ Review and comment or reply ☐ Review and decide ☒ Informational only – no response needed Budget required: Staff support required: Liaison comments: Initiative Origin Definitions Board and Commission Annual work plan 6 • Applicant-initiated – Project initiated by 3rd party (statutory boards) • Staff-initiated – Project initiated by staff liaison or other city staff • Commission-initiated – Project initiated by the board or commission • Council-initiated – Project tasked to a board or commission by the city council Strategic Priorities 1. St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. 2. St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. 3. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. 4. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably. 5. St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement Modifications • Work plans may be modified, to add or delete items, in one of three ways: • Work plans can be modified by mutual agreement during a joint work session. • If immediate approval is important, the board or commission can work with their staff liaison to present a modified work plan for city council approval at a council meeting. • The city council can direct a change to the work plan at their discretion. Board and Commission Annual work plan 7 Future ideas Initiatives that are being considered by the board or commission but not proposed in the annual work plan. Council approval is needed if the board or commission decides they would like to amend a work plan. Initiative Comments 1.City strategic priorities: https://www.stlouisparkmn.gov/our-city/about-us#:~:text=following%20strategic%20priorit ies%3A-,St.,to%20lead%20in%20environmental%20stewardship. 2.Discuss member reviews of the Vision 3.0 information for strategic priorities and community ideas a.Five key values i.Equity and inclusion for all, e.g. race, age, etc. 68.42% ii.Social connections to each other and to the community 39.47% iii.Housing – affordability and character 34.22% iv.Transit and mobility 28.95% v.Care for the natural environment b.RECOMMENDATION #1: Develop Creative Housing Solutions c.RECOMMENDATION #2: Develop Future-Focused Transit and Mobility Solutions d.RECOMMENDATION #3: Continue to Lead in Environmental Stewardship and Ensure Access to Green Space for Future Generations e.RECOMMENDATION #4: Prepare our Next Generation f.RECOMMENDATION #5: Commit to Being a Leader in Racial Equity and Inclusion 3.Previous CTAC minutes a.https://laserfiche.stlouispark.org/WebLink/CustomSearch.aspx?SearchName=Me etingMinutesandAgendasSearch&dbid=0&repo=SLP b.https://laserfiche.stlouispark.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=581301&dbid=0&rep o=SLP&searchid=2b878d22-7a33-4439-872c-f01581facedc i.Some feedback: work was solution in search of a problem ii.Smart cities broke up into 3 committees. There was some discussion of policy-level work, but it seemed to be focused on execution. iii.Our goal versus prior goals: take it up a level, present output that’s directly usable by council iv.3 committees 1.Environment a.Plug load/energy usage 2.Connected community a.Equal internet access 3.GIS a.Dan C. work; inclusionary housing dashboard v.Origin of smart cities: https://laserfiche.stlouispark.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=587912&dbid =0&repo=SLP&searchid=2b878d22-7a33-4439-872c-f01581facedc 4.City Council key topics a.Economic Development and Major Projects b.Transportation c.Parks, Recreation, Sustainability–climate action plan d.Housing & Equity e.Budget, Taxation, Finances Notes from Konnor Slaats, shared by email with CTAC members 6.25.25 and discussed at the 6.25.25 meeting, reflected in the minutes. f. Public Infrastructure & Utilities g. Joint/Regional Collaboration h. Policy & Regulation Ideas i. “Digital Services Audit” i. Website/app accessibility; adoption; propose AI-enhanced search and plain-language redesign j. AI uses/applications for city government? k. Cost-benefit of climate initiatives like EV fleets, EV chargers, green infrastructure i. Pilot V2G/V2B integration at Rec Center; assess utility/budget impact l. Examine digital consultation tools to collect public input on potential city projects/initiatives? m. Proactive infrastructure monitoring? 2. Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in Local Government City Council Focus: Modernizing service delivery, improving engagement Tech Angle: AI tools like chatbots, generative text, or camera analytics are starting to show up in local government. Policy Questions to Explore: ● Should St. Louis Park adopt a framework for responsible AI use (transparency, bias, data privacy)? ● What guardrails should be in place before piloting AI in planning, code enforcement, or public safety? ● How could AI improve staff efficiency without replacing community relationships? 5. Tech-Enabled Public Engagement Models City Council Focus: Community inclusion in planning and decision-making Tech Angle: Online engagement platforms, mapping tools, and SMS-based input methods can diversify participation. Policy Questions to Explore: ● How can the city build a policy foundation for more equitable, tech-enabled participation? ● What are the risks of digital-only engagement? How should hybrid models be structured? ● Should the city formalize digital engagement standards for rezoning, infrastructure, and budget input? Digital Equity & Access in City Services City Council Focus: Improving community engagement, transparency, and access Tech Angle: As more city functions move online (permits, payments, engagement), who's being left behind? Policy Questions to Explore: ● What digital barriers exist in St. Louis Park (language, broadband, device access)? ● How should the city ensure inclusive access to digital services for renters, seniors, non-English speakers? ● What digital service standards (e.g., mobile-first, ADA compliance) should be formalized in city policy? ● 3. Climate Technology Readiness & Governance City Council Focus: Sustainability, climate resilience Tech Angle: The city’s net-zero goals and green building efforts increasingly rely on smart tech (EV charging, smart HVAC, sensors). Policy Questions to Explore: ● What governance frameworks are needed to ensure equitable rollout of green technologies? ● How should the city evaluate new climate tech for cost-effectiveness, community benefit, and equity? ● What role should private tech vendors play—and how should the city structure oversight and data use?